nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

United Ireland Poll - please vote

bonzothedog

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.

The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Spanish Eyes

Let's say the Monarchy is abolished.
Let's say the UK is eventually fragmented post Brexit.
That would give me grounds for considering it. But on the bigger picture today it is a total NO from me. Far too divisive and dangerous, fraught with potential triumphalism from those who want a UI, cue trouble from those who don't. The expense financially, the political fallout, the total division up there is a scary thing to import. The only people that will be happy are the misty eyed in America really. The Shinners and dissidents are all mouth and no trousers playing to the gallery.

Jim_Hodge

king_gizzard wrote: »

Would this forum not skew towards a slightly older/conservative demographic?

I would have thought the exact opposite.

briany

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Let's say the Monarchy is abolished.
Let's say the UK is eventually fragmented post Brexit.
That would give me grounds for considering it. But on the bigger picture today it is a total NO from me. Far too divisive and dangerous, fraught with potential triumphalism from those who want a UI, cue trouble from those who don't. The expense financially, the political fallout, the total division up there is a scary thing to import. The only people that will be happy are the misty eyed in America really. The Shinners and dissidents are all mouth and no trousers playing to the gallery.

The North's current status is divisive among its inhabitants, so a UI being divisive is moot. Of course there would be those in NI who'd never accept it, but they can not accept it in a peaceful manner, just as Irish nationalists in the North reject British rule, but no longer really express this through violent means. Unless , in a United Ireland, British Unionists were so put upon that they felt no alternative but to resort to violence to make their voice heard, they'd have no cause to be violent, and doing so would only isolate them on the international stage and give them no political allies around the world.

To qualify this a bit, 'put upon' would not mean no longer being able to fly the Union Jack over Belfast city hall, but rather systemic discrimination and bigotry which actively diminished their quality of life and economic prospects.

Galwayguy35

Hope John Taylor keeps out of the coffin long enough to see it, the shock of it would probably finish him off.

He's on twitter spewing hatful bile every day, this is the guy who once said if Loyalists have to kill someone its better to cross the border and murder someone in the 26 counties.

wicklowstevo

jm08 wrote: »

What do you propose should be done with former members of the paramilitaries? Keep them all in jail?

murders thieves rapists and assorted other criminals ?

jail is where they should be don't you think ?

a lot of them ended up back there with out a political cause to claim anyway

the release of some of these monsters from both sides was the worst part of the gfa by a huge margin and has contributed to the horrendous state that ni is in today

downcow

briany wrote: »

The North's current status is divisive among its inhabitants, so a UI being divisive is moot. Of course there would be those in NI who'd never accept it, but they can not accept it in a peaceful manner, just as Irish nationalists in the North reject British rule, but no longer really express this through violent means. Unless , in a United Ireland, British Unionists were so put upon that they felt no alternative but to resort to violence to make their voice heard, they'd have no cause to be violent, and doing so would only isolate them on the international stage and give them no political allies around the world.

To qualify this a bit, 'put upon' would not mean no longer being able to fly the Union Jack over Belfast city hall, but rather systemic discrimination and bigotry which actively diminished their quality of life and economic prospects.

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence. Would you say devolution should not be granted if a majority of a region of Ireland wanted it?

downcow

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hope John Taylor keeps out of the coffin long enough to see it, the shock of it would probably finish him off.

He's on twitter spewing hatful bile every day, this is the guy who once said if Loyalists have to kill someone its better to cross the border and murder someone in the 26 counties.

This is disgraceful bile. I have no love for the senior version of john Taylor and his clumsy racist and sectarian outbursts.
He was critically injured in a sectarian attack by the Ira so I give him some latitude.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence.

An ever-decreasing minority will be in no position to be seeking 'autonomy then independence'. Fantasy stuff.

downcow

wicklowstevo wrote: »

murders thieves rapists and assorted other criminals ?

jail is where they should be don't you think ?

a lot of them ended up back there with out a political cause to claim anyway

the release of some of these monsters from both sides was the worst part of the gfa by a huge margin and has contributed to the horrendous state that ni is in today

Absolutely. Both sets of terrorists have demonstrated how evil they are.
A Sunday paper up north is running a story today of an ira member has come out to name a leading sf/ira member (I can’t remember his name - he was mates with Gerry Adams) who raped him at age 12. The senior ira figure forced him at 12 years of age to get girls clothes and dress up before he raped him.

downcow

I realise the poll is a small sample but it is interesting.
The poll was compromised by a load of pro-UI assumptions that can never be realised.
Even with that we discover that more than 75% * will not vote for a UI. A shocking result which I am very surprised mirrors the stats for ni

* the ‘fully agreed’ agreement that 25% said they would vote for obviously cannot happen. ie I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

igCorcaigh

downcow wrote: »

I realise the poll is a small sample but it is interesting.
The poll was compromised by a load of pro-UI assumptions that can never be realised.
Even with that we discover that more than 75% * will not vote for a UI. A shocking result which I am very surprised mirrors the stats for ni

* the ‘fully agreed’ agreement that 25% said they would vote for obviously cannot happen. ie I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

It is surprising.
I'm one of the No voters, but of course it all depends on the context of which the real vote is done.

igCorcaigh

downcow wrote: »

I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

Can I ask you why?
Is it for purely ideological reasons?

My No vote on the poll is probably a mix of ideological and practical, but I'm all very unsure.

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence. Would you say devolution should not be granted if a majority of a region of Ireland wanted it?

If the majority in the region did not want a UI then it is not going to happen by the terms of the GFA. If there is a UI then the strongly British in the region have been out numbered. Democracy will dictate the precarious status of the region.

Also in the poll by agreement it is ment Dublin London and even Brussels are in agreement on how it is going to be United. If you think one political party who only know the word no can stop a democratic border poll think again.

downcow

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Can I ask you why?
Is it for purely ideological reasons?

My No vote on the poll is probably a mix of ideological and practical, but I'm all very unsure.

Without going into a big long post, It’s probably same reason I guess you would not vote to reunite with the U.K. I could go into more detail if that doesn’t explain clearly

...and yes it is both idealogical and practical and indeed financial

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

If the majority in the region did not want a UI then it is not going to happen by the terms of the GFA. If there is a UI then the strongly British in the region have been out numbered. Democracy will dictate the precarious status of the region.

Also in the poll by agreement it is ment Dublin London and even Brussels are in agreement on how it is going to be United. If you think one political party who only know the word no can stop a democratic border poll think again.

I didn’t say any of that. I simply said the the original poster set the conditions of the poll. He asked if you would vote yes if it was ‘fully agreed’. I’m just saying that scenario can’t happen. He didn’t say that hundreds of thousands of people would be vehemently opposed to it.

I just would have been interested in results if a real scenario had been posted

bonzothedog

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

downcow

bonzothedog wrote: »

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

I don’t mean to get at you here, but if you believe that why did you not include it in the assumptions. I agree with you that it would be the reality, and I think if you had said that then it would have impacted the yes vote significantly.
You said l the positive stuff eg ‘fully agreed’ but none of the negative

Here is what you said in full (a pretty Rosie unrealistic picture)
“ Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.
The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.”

FrancieBrady

bonzothedog wrote: »

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

Unionists have been unhappy with all the signal progressive event and agreements of the last 40 years.

One of them - the GFA - is the pivotal one, as you say. In that they agreed to be democrats even though unhappy with it.
We now have political parties trying to insinuate that a majority will go back on their word. Those political parties NEVER signed up to it in the first place and try to hide behind elements of it and to use elements of it legally to their advantage.
The fact is the conditions for UI is already agreed when a majority want it. The onus (under international binding agreement) is on the two sovereign government to make that happen should the majority vote for it.

Junkyard Tom

Gregory Campbell was on the BBC Radio Ulster 'Talkback' Show this afternoon debating a United Ireland with Jim O'Callaghan from Fianna Fáil. Now if someone had said 5 years ago that such a thing would happen they'd have been laughed at.

It's good that the United Ireland discussion widens out from SF as SF carry the baggage of the Troubles in the north wheres the southern parties' baggage is hidden in a dusty basement and has been largely forgotten about.

Inquirer

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to personally have a go at anybody or disrespect anybody's ideals.

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on O'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

James Brown

Inquirer wrote: »

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on o'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

You should read back over this thread or the 'How long before Irish unification' thread. Much of what you ask has been covered more than once.

If Unionists are treated equally, as they no doubt will be, those missing being privileged or top dog will be upset. They would be in a minority and not able to muster public support IMO. So policing wouldn't be as much of an issue as we've seen.

wicklowstevo

Inquirer wrote: »

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on o'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

to argue against this post is to argue again logic and reason , clearly and eloquently put.

now sit back and watch the responses from the Serbian party machine

maccored

wicklowstevo wrote: »

to argue against this post is to argue again logic and reason , clearly and eloquently put.

now sit back and watch the responses from the Serbian party machine

Personally I think the poster raises great issues that could be debated in the discussions that have to be had.

You on the other hand use it as some kind of '**** you lets not discuss anything, lets not even bother with a UI as we might have to sit down and think about how its done'.

wicklowstevo

maccored wrote: »

Personally I think the poster raises great issues that could be debated in the discussions that have to be had.

You on the other hand use it as some kind of '**** you lets not discuss anything, lets not even bother with a UI as we might have to sit down and think about how its done'.

if you have relevant articulate and intelligent points that you feel would counter that post then id love to hear them , if you don't then maybe its because there isn't any .

the rest of your post is just petulance at being shown up again by logic

as in you've lost the argument and now you don't want to play anymore , school yard stuff lads :pac::pac:

for what its worth change the 10 years to 50 years and I bet the out come of the poll would lean a lot more towards UI and probably get my vote too but for now the stench of death, crime and corruption off of sf still gags to many decent Irish people

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

if you have relevant articulate and intelligent points that you feel would counter that post then id love to hear them , if you don't then maybe its because there isn't any .

the rest of your post is just petulance at being shown up again by logic

as in you've lost the argument and now you don't want to play anymore , school yard stuff lads :pac::pac:

for what its worth change the 10 years to 50 years and I bet the out come of the poll would lean a lot more towards UI and probably get my vote too but for now the stench of death, crime and corruption off of sf still gags to many decent Irish people

The Irish Government (democratically elected by the people) will be proposing a UI, whenever the time comes.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish Government (democratically elected by the people) will be proposing a UI, whenever the time comes.

so no then ……. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the poll was effected by the online army in Serbia though

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

so no then ……. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the poll was effected by the online army in Serbia though

Well even if you subtract two votes...the anti UI crowd still lose. And that reduces to one vote if I bother to cast mine.

The desire for a UI crosses party lines and unless a new party emerges here, then ANY Irish government of the future will be proposing and endorsing a UI.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well even if you subtract two votes...the anti UI crowd still lose. And that reduces to one vote if I bother to cast mine.

The desire for a UI crosses party lines and unless a new party emerges here, then ANY Irish government of the future will be proposing and endorsing a UI.

lol , that's what you think the poll show's ?

like I said , if you have a viable argument id love to hear it but until then your just going around in circles with the rest of the online army

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

lol , that's what you think the poll show's ?

like I said , if you have a viable argument id love to hear it but until then your just going around in circles with the rest of the online army

Any poll on this shows cross party support for a UI. That is because THERE IS cross party support.

Why would here be any different?

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any poll on this shows cross party support for a UI. That is because THERE IS cross party support.

Why would here be any different?

I think the cross party support has been limited to mild lip service for about 50 years tbh. But it won't wash anymore, and if there's an SF Taoiseach it will become even more of an issue.

On TV last week Micheal Martin was talking like a politician 10 or 15 years ago, need for discussions and respect etc, lovely soft talk, but unfortunately for people like him partition is a genuine issue again and will probably be the biggest political issue for the next 25 years. Varadkar at least seems to realise that soundbytes that were fine ten years ago aren't enough.